Allowed

M/s Krishidhan Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Officer

DRAT10 Jan 2024IA/688/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellants challenged an order dismissing their appeal regarding an auctioned property sale. The Chairperson allowed the appeal to proceed without requiring a fresh deposit, direction that the amount already lying in deposit (sale price with interest) from an earlier appeal be brought forward and counted as pre-deposit for current proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Court held that the amount lying in deposit (sale price) and accrued interest in Appeal No. 252 of 2007 shall be considered as pre-deposit for entertaining the current appeal.

M/s Krishidhan Farms Pvt. Ltd. versus Debt Recovery Officer — Dowry and Cruelty | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 688/2023 In Appeal on Diary No.1565/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s Krishidhan Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Anr … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

The Recovery Officer & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Swapnil N., along with B. Gandhi & Ms Poonam K. i/b M/s A & G Legal Associates, Advocate for Appellants. Mr O.A. Das, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Bank.

¶7

Ms Madhuri R. Vaidya along with Mr Vishal Tambe, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 3 to 8.

¶8

The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 24.07.2023 in Appeal No. 09 of 2006 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune (D.R.T.) dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the order passed the Recovery Officer in Recovery Proceeding (R.P.) No. 209 of 2002 rejecting the application filed by the Appellants for dismissing the execution proceedings and cancelling the bids in the public auction of the subject properties, accepted on 28.11.2005.

¶9

The appeal was once dismissed by the D.R.T. vide order dated 26.07.2006 and the Review Application No. 8 of 2006 was also dismissed on 05.04.2007. The Appellants had thereafter filed Appeal No. 252 of 2007 before the D.R.A.T. which was allowed vide order

¶10

¶11

dated 01.07.2014 and remanded the Appeal No. 09 of 2006 to the D.R.T. directing fresh consideration on certain aspects. After consideration of the aforesaid Appeal No. 09 of 2006 afresh, it was once again dismissed vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2023. The Appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal once again.

¶12

The subject property was sold for a sale consideration ₹21,35,000/- on 10.02.2006 in the earlier appeal that was filed as Appeal No. 252 of 2007, this Tribunal had directed to the deposit of the entire sale amount as pre-deposit under Sec. 21 the Recovery of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (‘RDDB & FI Act’, for short). The said amount is still in a lying deposit and has not been withdrawn. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submit that the aforesaid amount lying in deposit together with accrued interest may be considered as pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal.

¶13

Respondent No. 2 is the certified creditor and has filed a reply stating that a sum of ₹438,27,06,160.17 is due from the Appellants as of 11.10.2023 inclusive of interest. The bank had filed the Original Suit before the Civil Court in the year 1998 for recovery of a sum of ₹39,87,967.75 and interest thereon. The suit was transferred to the D.R.T. and was refiled as Original Application (O.A.) No. 454 of 2001. During the pendency of the O.A., the parties entered into a compromise and consent terms were filed. The O.A. was disposed of by the terms. The Appellants agreed to pay a sum of ₹24 lakhs towards which ₹3,40,000/ - paid immediately and the balance amount of ₹20,60,000 /- was to be paid to the Respondent bank by 27.10.2002.

¶14

¶15

The Appellants defaulted payment within the stipulated time and as per the terms of the compromise, the entire amount together with interest was liable to be paid. For the realisation of the amount that was due from the Appellants, the bank filed Recovery Proceedings No. 209 of 2002. The subject property was attached and put up for auction sale by the Recovery Officer. The Appellants who were present all along, did not raise any objection. The highest bid for the property in the auction was accepted on 28.11.2005.

¶16

The Appellants thereafter filed Exh.75 in the aforesaid R.P. for cancellation and setting aside the same. The application was rejected by the Recovery Officer in consequence of which the aforesaid Appeal No. 09 of 2006 was filed. 6. This Tribunal had while disposing Appeal No. 252 of 2007 directed the D.R.T. to consider whether the amount was paid by the Appellants in time and whether the auction was properly conducted. The Ld. Presiding Officer considered the contentions of the Appellants and dismissed the appeal once again. To entertain this appeal, the Appellants are liable to deposit 50% of the amount i.e. presently due as stated earlier in the reply. 7. Respondents Nos. 3 to 8 have also filed a reply to the application for waiver of deposit contending that the sale certificate was issued and the property was sold to Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 who are presently in possession of the property. These Respondents are not aware of any deposit made by the Appellants.

¶17

After having heard both sides, I find that this appeal is preferred under the provisions of the pre-amended RDDB & FI Act wherein this Tribunal had the jurisdiction to waive or reduce the entire amount

¶18

¶19

of 75% of the debt. The amendment to this provision had come into effect only in the year 2016 taking away the powers of this Tribunal to grant a total waiver.

¶20

Since the Appellants have already deposited the entire sale price. This Tribunal is not inclined to direct any further deposit for entertaining this appeal. The amount lying in deposit in Appeal No. 252 of 2007 together with accrued interest shall be brought forward to the present appeal and be considered as pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal. The exact amount shall be ascertained by the office and reported.

¶21

The application is disposed and the appeal shall be taken on file in case there are no other defects to be cured.

¶22

Post before the Registrar on 25.01.2024.

¶23

Sd/Chairperson

¶24

mks-1

¶25

M/s Krishidhan Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Krishidhan Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane versus State Bank of India

Kokila H Shah versus Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Adi Impex Infra Services versus State Bank of India

Stone Yuug versus Bank of Baroda

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Private Limited

Ms. Angle Aruna Rebello Anr. versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.